Diolch, Dirprwy Lywydd. Can I just say I definitely welcome this statement? Anything that speaks to improvement and the visibility of the improvement in standards is something I'm sure we will all want to hear a little bit more about.

Perhaps I could just ask you to kick off with—you say that we're going to get an update on this again when the curriculum areas of learning and experience are going to be published, which I think is due for April next year. Can you tell us if that's broadly right and, in which case, how difficult it's going to be for the peer review work that you mentioned at the end of your statement there to be produced by the end of the year? It doesn't seem to give them an awful lot of time to get to grips with this new system.

I welcome in particular as well the acknowledgement of the unintended, but, arguably, foreseeable consequences of the existing system that has been overfocusing on that C-D boundary and early entry, both of which were matters we raised in the debate last week. In that debate, we also challenged the assertion that comparisons in standards couldn't be made year on year because—in that case, we were talking about qualifications, but we said that you still can compare, because the Qualifications Wales report had told us that standards were stable. What I'm after, I think, is some assurance that the change in this system won't make it difficult for us to compare findings on improvement or failure to improve in what is to come and what has already been. You already know about our concerns about recategorisation possibly disguising some failures to improve, and, as we've heard with ambulance waiting times, changing rules does just disguise an increasingly worrying constituent experience. We want to avoid us being in that position with these changes, which, as I say, on the face of it, look very welcome. We do have a duty to scrutinise you, and I know I'm new in this post at the moment, but I'm finding it difficult to find points of comparison between the system we have at the moment and the changes you gave us an indication of in your May written statement. So, obviously, I hope to get better at comparing, but if you can give us, as I say, some assurance that we're going to be able to see comparables between this system and the previous—.

Will the evaluation include the effect of emphasis on academic subjects over good-quality vocational offers? I raised this again in the debate last week, where we saw that the drop in the number of entries by weaker students for A-levels obviously improved the statistics for A-levels, whereas an increase in numbers going for GCSE sciences saw an overall drop in the percentage of A to C achievements. So, part of this change is to better evaluate the quality of leadership, and as school management is one of the reasons we had a ruck of warning notices, also referred to in last week's debate, can you tell us that if school leaders, on a per-pupil basis, decide a pupil is better equipped, if you like, to go for a vocational subject rather than an academic subject, or examination, sorry, that this won't affect the school evaluation statistics? Because good leadership is about getting the best out of every pupil, and, of course, academic subjects aren't for everybody.

I'm pleased to see that the evaluation applies to regional consortia and, indeed, Welsh Government. Self-evaluation, of course, may be a characteristic of best practice, but it does come with its own risks, and I seem to remember that the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development report, going back a couple of years now, identified that schools in Wales tended to be rather overgenerous with themselves when it came to self-evaluation of their performance on discipline. So, I absolutely welcome this idea of peer review, particularly the final comments in your statement. But can I ask whether it allows for an element of—well, I've got 'cross-pollination' written down here, but what I mean by that is: will schools, in evaluating themselves, be allowed to comment on their relationships with school consortia, with schools challenge, even local authorities, maybe even Welsh Government, because these are all relationships that should lead to better school standards? So, I'd like them to have the freedom to be honest about those relationships and, similarly, for those other bodies to have the freedom to be honest about their relationships with certain schools as well.

And then, finally, you mentioned visibility—or maybe comprehensibility is what I'm more interested in, because that whole world of school families and quartiles genuinely may as well been written in Klingon as far as families were concerned. So, even though the OECD may have suggested that assessment of pupil performance is about identifying their strengths and weaknesses in order to help them improve, I think it's realistic to expect families to want to understand how schools as a whole are performing as well. So, how will you be establishing what information matters to families and how that information will be included in the summary of the school development plan? I'm just wondering: is there any space, perhaps, for some guidance on that to run alongside the new evaluation indicators? Because the quality of communications between schools and families is something that's worth evaluating, in my view—maybe not necessarily as part of this, but if there's some way we can incorporate that into what we're looking at in the future, that would be really helpful. Thank you.